BHARTIYA NAGARIK SURAKHSA

SANHITA, 2023
RAMANDEEP KAUR LEHMOD
SECTION A
SECTION- A
Committal Proceedings
Framing of Charges
• Meaning and contents of Charge
• Principles Related to framing of Charge
• Alternation and Addition of Charges
• Joinder of Charges
Trial before the Court of Sessions with reference to examination of the accused
Hearing of the Accused on the Question of the Sentence
Important Cases:
• Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 with Tarun Jit Tejpal vs State of Goa,
Supreme Court on 19th August 2019
• Willie (William) Slaney vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116 with Jasvinder Saini vs
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 & Kamil vs State of UP Supreme Court on 31st
October 2018
• Accused X vs State of Maharashtra, Decided by Supreme Court on 12th April 2019

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
Introduction :- Committal proceedings are court appearances held in the Magistrates’ Court to determine if there is enough evidence against a defendant charged with a
major criminal offense to compel them to stand trial in a higher court. Committal proceedings are governed and also formed under section 189 of BNSS .Additionally,
the ingredients and requirements of sections 187 and 188 of the BNSS should be satisfied or at least combined with it in order to fully satisfy section 189 of the BNSS.
Committal Procedure in India (under BNSS):
• Section 230 of the BNSS: This section requires the Magistrate to provide the accused with a copy of the charge sheet and documents upon which the
prosecution intends to rely.
• Section 232 of the BNSS: This section deals with committal proceedings and specifies that if the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate should
commit the case to the Sessions Court after perusing the charge sheet and evidence.
• Section 358 of the BNSS: This section allows a court to summon additional accused if, during the trial, it appears that others were involved in the commission
of the offense.

1
Features of Committal Proceedings:
1. Transfer of serious cases from Magistrate’s Court to Sessions Court.
2. Applicable to cognizable offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or long-term imprisonment.
3. Magistrate reviews the charge sheet and evidence to determine sufficiency.
4. The accused is informed of charges and given a chance to be heard.
5. The Magistrate issues a committal order if there is a prima facie case.
6. Governed by Section 232 of the BNSS.
7. Sessions Court handles the trial if the case is committed.
8. Accused can challenge the committal decision if evidence is insufficient.
9. Ensures a higher court handles more severe cases, reflecting the gravity of the offense.
10. Accused has the right to be provided with charge sheets and documents.

SECTION 232 BNSS :- When a person is charged with an offence that can only be tried in a higher court (called the Court of Session), and they are brought before
the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to do the following:
1. Send the Case to the Court of Session: The Magistrate will send the case to the Court of Session after following the proper legal procedures. The accused may
be kept in custody until this happens, but this is subject to the rules about bail.
2. Keep the Accused in Custody for the Trial: The Magistrate can also decide to keep the accused in custody throughout the trial and until it ends, again following
the rules about bail.
3. Send the Case Files: The Magistrate will send the case details, documents, and any evidence to the Court of Session.
4. Inform the Public Prosecutor: The Magistrate will inform the Public Prosecutor that the case has been sent to the Court of Session.
5. Time Limit for the Process: This whole process must be completed within 90 days from when the Magistrate first takes notice of the case. If needed, the
Magistrate can extend this period for up to 180 more days, but they have to explain why.
6. Forward Applications to the Court of Session: If the accused, the victim, or anyone acting on their behalf files an application in the case, it must be sent to the
Court of Session along with the case details.

2
FRAMING OF CHARGES 234-247
• MEANING AND CONTENTS OF CHARGE 234-237
• PRINCIPLES RELATED TO FRAMING OF CHARGE
• ALTERNATION AND ADDITION OF CHARGES 239-240
• JOINDER OF CHARGES 241-247
Framing of Charges
The accused who has to face the criminal trial must be informed of the accusation against him. The purpose of framing a charge is to provide the accused with detailed
information about the allegations against him. Framing of proper charge is one of the basic requirements of a fair trial. Charge is of great significance in a criminal trial as
it helps not only helps the accused in knowing the accusation against him but also helps him in the preparation of his defence.
Bharatitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (‘BNSS’ for brevity) as well as Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for brevity) do not give a detailed definition of
charge. They merely state that charge includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one.
MEANING OF CHARGE
In legal terms, a charge refers to an accusation or formal assertion that someone has committed a specific crime or offense. It typically outlines the alleged illegal act and
is used as the basis for legal proceedings against the accused individual. A charge is usually made by law enforcement or a prosecutor and can be part of criminal or civil
cases.
FRAMING OF CHARGES
1. Contents of charge s. 234
2. particular time, place and person s. 235
3. Manner in which the offence is committed S.236
4. Words in charge must be taken from law in which the offence is punishable S.237
CONTENTS OF CHARGE S.234: - Section 234 BNSS states that the charge should enable the accused to know the offence with which he is charged, the law and
section of law against which the offence is said to have been committed. Section 235 BNSS states that the particulars of time, date, place and person against whom the
offence is said to have been committed should be mentioned.
• In terms of Section 234(1) of the BNSS, every charge should necessarily state the offence for which any individual is being made the accused for commission. This
provides a clear understanding of the nature of the crime being committed.
3
• Further, in case the statute prescribes any specific name to the offence which has been committed, such specific name shall be used in terms of Section 234(2) of the
BNSS.
• Furthermore, in cases wherein there is no specific name prescribed under the law to the offence, the definition of such an offence must be included within the charge
in terms of Section 234(3) of the BNSS, to provide the accused, sufficient opportunity to ascertain the offence for which he has been made accused.
• Any formation of charge should necessarily include the laws and sections relying upon which the offences are being assumed to be committed in terms of Section
234(4) of the BNSS.
• The framing of a charge implies that all legal conditions necessary to constitute the offence charged have been duly met in the given case. In section 234(5)
• Section 234(6) of the BNSS prescribes that the charge must be written in the language of the court.
• If the individual against whom the charges are being framed, has been previously convicted of any offence, such previous conviction may have an impact on the
punishment if the Court deems fit. In such cases, the charge must include the details of previous conviction such as facts, date, place of offence etc. If the charge
doesn’t include the details of such a previous conviction, the same may be added by the Court while the sentence is passed. [Section 234 (7)]
PARTICULAR TIME, PLACE AND PERSON S. 235: - When someone is charged with a crime, the charge should include enough details to make it clear what they
are being accused of. This means it should state the time and place of the alleged crime and, if applicable, who the crime was committed against or what was involved in
the crime. This ensures that the accused person knows what the charge is and can prepare a defence. In cases of theft or dishonestly taking property, it’s not necessary to
list every item or exact date. Instead, the charge can mention the total amount of money or describe the property involved, as well as the range of dates when the crime is
believed to have occurred, without specifying exact dates. Even if multiple dates or items are involved, it will still be treated as one charge. However, the dates mentioned
should not be more than one year apart. This approach provides enough information for the accused while allowing flexibility in cases where exact details are difficult to
provide, such as in financial crimes.
MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED S.236: - If the details provided in sections 234 and 235 (which refer to the time, place, and nature of the
offense) aren't enough to clearly inform the accused about the crime they're being charged with, then the charge must also include extra details. These additional details
should explain how the crime was committed in a way that helps the accused understand the charge and prepare their defence. Essentially, if the basic information isn’t
enough, more specifics about the way the offense occurred will be included.
WORDS IN CHARGE MUST BE TAKEN FROM LAW IN WHICH THE OFFENCE IS PUNISHABLE S.237: - This section says that in any charge, the words
used to describe an offense will be understood according to the meaning given to them by the law. In other words, the legal definitions of the terms used in the charge will
apply, even if the ordinary meaning of the words might be different. So, the specific legal interpretation of the offense is what matters, not just how the words might be
understood in everyday language.

4
 EFFECT OF ERROR S. 238
EFECT OF ERROR S.238: - If there is a mistake in stating the offense or the details in the charge, or if some details are left out, it won't be considered a serious issue
unless it actually confuses the accused and causes an unfair trial. In other words, as long as the error or omission doesn't mislead the accused and doesn't lead to a failure
of justice, it won't be considered important at any point during the case.
ALTERNATION AND ADDITION OF CHARGES 239-240
COURT MAY ALTER CHARGES S. 239: - This section explains the court's power to change or add details to a charge during a trial and the procedures involved:
1. The court can change or add to a charge at any point before the judgment is given.
2. Informing the Accused: If the charge is altered or added, the court must read and explain the new or changed charge to the accused.
3. Proceeding with the Trial After Changes: If the change or addition is minor and it won't harm the accused’s defence or the prosecutor’s case, the court can continue
with the trial as though the new or changed charge was the original one.
4. Delaying the Trial if Necessary: If the change or addition is significant enough that proceeding with the trial could unfairly affect either the accused or the prosecutor,
the court can either:
5. Start a new trial, or
6. Postpone the trial for as long as needed to allow both sides to prepare properly.
7. Sanction for Prosecution: If the new or changed charge requires special permission (sanction) to prosecute, the trial cannot continue until that sanction is obtained,
unless permission was already granted for a case based on the same facts as the altered charge.
RECALL OF WITNESSES WHEN CHARGE ALTERED S.240: - If the court changes or adds to a charge during the trial, both the prosecutor and the accused have
the right to bring back any witness who has already testified to ask them more questions related to the new or changed charge. However, if the court thinks this is being
done just to cause delays or make things harder for the other party, it can stop them from recalling the witness, and the court will explain why in writing. Additionally,
both the prosecutor and the accused can ask the court to allow new witnesses to testify if their information is important to the case. This ensures that everyone has a fair
chance to address the changes in the charge without causing unnecessary delays.
JOINDER OF CHARGES 241-247
SEPRATE CHARGES FOR DISTINCT OFFENCES S.24: - This section explains how charges should be handled in court:

5
1. Separate Charges for Each Offense: For every different crime a person is accused of, there must be a separate charge, and each charge must be tried separately.
However, if the accused person asks in writing and the Magistrate thinks it won’t harm their case, the Magistrate can decide to try all or some of the charges together.
2. Exceptions: The rules in this section don't change the way certain other sections (242, 243, 244, and 246) are applied. These sections still apply as usual.
OFFENCES OF SAME KIND WITHIN ONE YEAR MAY BE CHARGES TOGETHER S.242: - This section explains how multiple offenses of the same kind can
be handled in court:
1. Charging Multiple Offenses Together: If a person is accused of committing more than one offense of the same type within a 12-month period (from the first to the
last offense), they can be charged with up to five of these offenses and tried together in one trial.
2. Offenses of the Same Kind: Offenses are considered to be of the same kind if they are punishable under the same law or section, whether it's the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 or any special or local law.
o For example, an offense under a specific section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would be treated as the same kind if it has similar punishment.
o Additionally, an offense that is an attempt to commit a crime is treated the same as the full offense if the law considers attempting the crime as an offense.
In simpler terms, if someone commits several similar offenses within a year, they can be charged and tried together, as long as the offenses are of the same type and meet
certain legal criteria.
TRIAL FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFENCE S.243: - This section explains that
1. if a person commits multiple offenses that are connected, they can be charged and tried for all of them in one trial. For example, if someone commits crimes like
stealing or breach of trust and also falsifies accounts to cover up those crimes, they can be tried for both offenses together.
2. If a person’s actions involve offenses under different laws, they can be charged for each of those offenses in one trial.
3. Additionally, if several acts together create a new crime, the person can be charged with both the new crime and any individual offenses caused by any of the separate
acts.
4. However, this rule doesn’t change the provisions in section 9 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In simple terms, if multiple related crimes are committed, they
can be handled in one trial unless specific laws say otherwise.
WHEN IT IS DBOUTFULL WHAT OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED S. 244: - This section explains that if a person’s actions could be seen as several
different crimes, the accused can be charged with any or all of those crimes, and the case can be tried for all the charges at once. Alternatively, the person could be
charged with one of the crimes as an option. If during the trial it turns out that the person committed a different crime than the one, they were originally charged with, but
one they could have been charged with, they can still be convicted of that crime, even if it wasn’t part of the original charge. In short, the court has the flexibility to charge
someone with multiple offenses and convict them based on what the evidence shows.
6
WHEN OFFENCE PROVED INCLUDE IN OFFENCE CHARGED S.245 :- This section explains that a person can be convicted of a lesser offense even if they
weren’t charged with it. For example, if someone is charged with a crime that has multiple parts, and only some of those parts prove a smaller, less serious crime, they can
be convicted of that minor crime, even if it wasn’t originally included in the charge.
Additionally, if the facts of the case show that the original offense is less serious, the person can be convicted of the lesser crime, even if they weren’t charged with it. A
person can also be convicted of attempting to commit the crime they were charged with, even if the attempt wasn’t separately charged. However, this rule doesn’t allow
for a conviction of a minor crime if the legal conditions for charging that crime haven’t been met. In short, the court has the flexibility to convict someone of a lesser or
attempted crime if the evidence shows they committed it, but the legal process must be followed.
PERSONS MAY BE CHARGED JOINTLY S.246 :- This section explains the situations where multiple people can be charged and tried together:
1. Same Offense in the Same Transaction: People accused of committing the same offense during the same set of actions can be tried together.
2. Offense and Abetment or Attempt: People accused of committing a crime, along with those accused of helping (abetment) or attempting to commit the crime,
can be tried together.
3. Multiple Offenses of the Same Kind: People accused of committing multiple offenses of the same type within 12 months can be charged and tried together.
4. Different Offenses in the Same Transaction: People who commit different crimes as part of the same set of actions can be tried together.
5. Offenses Involving Theft, Extortion, Cheating, or Criminal Misappropriation: If someone is accused of one of these crimes and another person is accused of
handling stolen property, hiding it, or helping to dispose of it, they can be tried together.
6. Offenses Related to Stolen Property: People accused of crimes under certain sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, related to stolen property, can be
tried together.
7. Counterfeit Coin Offenses: People involved in crimes related to counterfeit coins under the same chapter of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or attempting to
commit them, can be tried together.
Finally, if a group of people is charged with different crimes and doesn’t fit into the categories above, they can still be tried together if they request it in writing, and the
judge is satisfied that it won’t unfairly harm anyone’s case. In simpler terms, this section allows people accused of related crimes to be tried together, as long as the
offenses are connected in some way. However, if the crimes are separate, the judge can decide if it’s fair to try them together.
WITHDRAWAL OF REMAINING CHARGES ON CONVICTION ON ONE OF SEVERAL CHARGES S.247 :- This section explains what happens when
multiple charges are made against the same person, and some of those charges result in a conviction:
• If a person is charged with more than one offense, and they are convicted of one or more of those charges, the complainant or prosecutor can ask the court to
withdraw the remaining charges with the court’s permission.
7
• Alternatively, the court can decide on its own to stop the investigation or trial of the remaining charges.
• If charges are withdrawn, it is considered an acquittal for those charges, meaning the person is treated as if they were not guilty of those charges, unless the conviction
is overturned.
• If the conviction is later set aside, the court can go ahead with investigating or trying the withdrawn charges, based on the decision of the court that overturned the
conviction.
JUDGMENTS RELATED TO CHARGE
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004)
The Hon’ble Court in this case held that while the charge is being framed against an individual, the evidence cannot be meticulously considered at that stage, and the same
may be framed in there is sufficient materials to establish the commission of offence, which is irrespective of the fact that whether the case is based on circumstantial
evidence or based on direct evidence.
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal (2000)
Hon’ble Court held that if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do
so.
Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash (2013)
In this where the accused suppressed the fact of framing charges before the Revisional Court against an order of a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and
thereupon prayed for discharge it was held that the High Court was not justified in discharging the accused as the accused tried to gain an advantage by suppression of
fact
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It was held that it is immaterial whether the
case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence and a charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about commission of the offence by the accused as
against certainty.

8
 TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS WITH REFERENCE TO EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED S. 248 - 260

Trial before court of session

Trial to be conducted by public prosecutor S. 248

Opening case for public prosecutor S. 249

Discharge S.250 Framing of charges S. 251

Plea guilty Not plea guilty

Conviction on plea of guilty S. 252 Date for the prosecution evidence S.253

Evidence for prosecution S. 254

Entering upon defence S. 256 Acquittal S.255

Previous conviction S. 259

Procedure in cases instituted under sub-section (2) of Arguments S. 257

section 222 (S.260)
Judgement of acquittal or conviction S. 258

9
INTRODUCTION :- A trial before the Court of Sessions is a judicial process in which an individual accused of a serious criminal offense, usually punishable by death,
life imprisonment, or a long-term sentence, faces formal legal proceedings. The Court of Sessions has jurisdiction over more grave and complex cases, including offenses
like murder, rape, terrorism, and robbery. The significance of the trial lies not only in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but also in ensuring that justice is
delivered through a fair and structured legal process.
INITIAL STEPS IN THE TRIAL STEPS TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE STEPS TO FOLLOW THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE JUDGMENT AND CONNECTED MATTERS
1. Opening case for prosecution 1. Evidence for prosecution 1. Entering upon defence 1. Judgment
2. Discharge 3. Order of the acquittal 2. Arguments 2. Procedure in case of previous conviction
3. Framing of charge 3. Procedure in cases instituted under sub-section
4. Explaining the charge to the accused (2) of section 222 (S.260)
5. Conviction on plea of guilty
6. Date for prosecution evidence

INITIAL STEPS IN THE TRIAL

 Opening case for prosecution S.249 :- When the accused is brought to the Court of Sessions after their case is sent there, the prosecutor begins the trial by
explaining the charges against the accused. This happens after the case has been examined by a lower court, such as a Magistrate's Court, to determine if there is
enough evidence to move the case to the higher Court of Sessions. In the court, the prosecutor outlines the crime the accused is being charged with and also explains
the evidence they will present to prove the accused's guilt. The judge listens to the prosecutor’s opening statement to ensure that the trial is fair, though the judge
doesn’t decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused at this point.
 Discharge S.250 :- this section sates that :
1. The accused has the right to apply for discharge within sixty days from the date their case is committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 232. If the accused files
this application, the judge will review the case records and documents presented.
2. After hearing both the accused and the prosecution, if the judge determines that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to continue the case, they may decide to
discharge the accused. The judge must also record and provide reasons for their decision to discharge the accused. This process allows the court to dismiss the case if
there isn’t enough evidence to move forward with the trial.
 Framing of charge S.251 :- After reviewing the case and hearing both the accused and the prosecution, if the judge believes there is enough evidence to suggest that
the accused has committed an offense, the judge will take further action based on the nature of the offense:
If the offense is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions (meaning it can be tried by a lower court), the judge can frame a charge against the accused and
transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The case will then be tried according to the procedures for warrant-cases
(cases where a police report is involved), and the accused will be asked to appear before the Magistrate on a date set by the court.

10
 If the offense is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the judge will frame a formal charge against the accused in writing, and this must be done within sixty
days from the date of the first hearing.
Once the charge is framed, the judge will read and explain the charge to the accused. This can be done in person or via audio-video electronic means. The accused
will then be asked whether they plead guilty or wish to be tried in court. This procedure is an essential part of ensuring the accused understands the charge and can
decide how to proceed in the trial.
 Conviction on plea of guilty S.252 :- If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, the judge will record the guilty plea and may, at their discretion, convict the accused
based on that plea. This means that the judge can decide to convict the accused immediately without a full trial, as the accused has admitted to committing the offense.
The judge's discretion allows them to consider the circumstances of the case before making a final decision on the conviction.
 Date for prosecution evidence S.253 :- If the accused refuses to plead, does not plead, claims to be tried, or is not convicted under Section 252, the judge will then
set a date for the examination of witnesses. On this date, the trial will proceed with the prosecution presenting its evidence and witnesses. Additionally, if the
prosecution requests it, the judge may issue orders to compel the attendance of any witnesses or the production of documents or other evidence that may be necessary
for the trial. This ensures that all necessary witnesses and evidence are available for the trial to proceed.
STEPS TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

 Evidence for prosecution S.254 :- Under this section the prosecution provide their evidences and witnesses :
1. On the date set for the examination of witnesses, the judge will proceed to take all the evidence that the prosecution presents to support its case. The judge may
allow the evidence of a witness to be recorded through audio-video electronic means if necessary.
2. In the case of a public servant, their deposition (testimony) can also be taken through audio-video electronic means.
3. Additionally, the judge has the discretion to allow the cross-examination of any witness to be postponed until other witnesses have been examined. The judge can
also recall a witness at a later time if further cross-examination is required.
 Order of the acquittal S.255 :- If, after considering all the evidence presented by the prosecution, examining the accused, and hearing arguments from both the
prosecution and the defence, the judge determines that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the accused committed the offense, the judge will issue an order of
acquittal. This means the accused will be cleared of the charges and found not guilty due to the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

11
STEPS TO FOLLOW THE DEFENCE EVIDENCE

 Entering upon defence S.256 :- If the accused is not acquitted under Section 255, the judge will then call upon the accused to present their defence. The accused will
be given an opportunity to provide any evidence they have in support of their case. If the accused submits a written statement, the judge will file it along with the case
records.
Additionally, if the accused requests that any witnesses be summoned or any documents or other evidence be produced, the judge must issue the necessary orders
unless the judge believes, for specific reasons, that the request is made for purposes of vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. If the judge decides the request
is not legitimate, they may refuse to issue the process and must record the reasons for this decision.
 Arguments S.257 :- Once the defence witnesses (if any) have been examined, the prosecutor will summarize their case, presenting a final overview of the evidence
and arguments. After the prosecutor’s summary, the accused or their advocate has the right to reply, addressing any points raised by the prosecution. However, if the
accused or their advocate raises any point of law, the prosecution may be allowed, with the judge’s permission, to make submissions on that legal point. This ensures
that both sides have the opportunity to address all relevant aspects of the case before the trial concludes.
JUDGMENT AND CONNECTED MATTERS

 Judgment S.258 :- After hearing all the arguments and any points of law (if raised), the judge is required to give a judgment in the case as soon as possible, but no
later than thirty days from the completion of the arguments. This period may be extended to forty-five days, but the judge must record the reasons for the delay in
writing.
If the accused is found guilty and convicted, the judge will then hear the accused on the issue of sentence—meaning the accused will be given an opportunity to speak
before the judge decides on the punishment. After hearing the accused, the judge will pass the sentence according to the law, unless the judge decides to take any
further actions as per Section 401.
 Procedure in case of previous conviction S.259 :- In a case where the accused is charged with a previous conviction under sub-section (7) of Section 234, and the
accused does not admit to the prior conviction as stated in the charge, the judge may, after convicting the accused under Section 252 or Section 258, take evidence to
verify the previous conviction. After considering the evidence, the judge must record a finding on whether the accused had been previously convicted as alleged.
However, the judge is not allowed to read out the charge regarding the previous conviction, ask the accused to plead to it, or allow the prosecution to refer to it or
present any evidence about it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under Section 252 or Section 258. This ensures that the previous conviction is only
considered after the current conviction has been made.

12
 Procedure in cases instituted under sub-section (2) of section 222 (S.260) :-
1. The trial will follow the procedure for warrant-cases in the Court of Session.
2. The person who is said to have been the victim must be examined as a witness, unless the Court decides otherwise.
3. The trial can be held in private if either party asks for it or the Court thinks it is needed.
4. If the accused is acquitted or discharged and the Court thinks there was no reason for the accusation, the person who made the accusation might have to explain why
they shouldn’t pay compensation.
5. If the Court decides there was no reason for the accusation, the person who made it can be ordered to pay up to 5,000 rupees as compensation to the accused.
6. The compensation will be recovered the same way as a fine imposed by a Magistrate.
7. Paying compensation doesn’t mean the person is free from civil or criminal responsibility for their actions. If there’s a civil suit later, the compensation paid will be
considered.
8. The person who is ordered to pay compensation can appeal the decision to the High Court.
9. The compensation won’t be paid until the time to appeal is over or the appeal is decided.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Jogi v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
In the case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Jogi v. State of Maharashtra (2008), the accused was charged with murder based primarily on circumstantial evidence, such as
the last-seen theory and forensic findings. The accused denied the charges during the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that circumstantial evidence can be enough for a
conviction if it creates a clear, unbroken chain that points directly to the accused's guilt. The Court also emphasized the importance of providing the accused with a fair
opportunity to explain the evidence against them during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Rajbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2006

In the case of Rajbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2006), Rajbir Singh was accused of murder, but the prosecution's evidence was not strong enough to prove
his guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that the conviction was unjustified due to insufficient evidence and emphasized the importance of reliable and clear evidence in criminal
cases. The Court also reaffirmed that the accused should be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves during the trial.

13
Misra R.S. v. State of Orissa (2011)
In the case of Misra R.S. v. State of Orissa (2011), the accused was charged with murder. The case focused on whether the prosecution could establish the accused's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of the accused was incorrect due to insufficient evidence. The
Court stressed that for a conviction to be valid, the evidence must be reliable and should form a clear link to the accused's involvement in the crime. The Court emphasized
the importance of ensuring that proper procedures are followed during the trial and that the accused's rights are respected throughout the process.
Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017)
The Supreme Court held that examination of the accused is not just a formal requirement. It is an essential safeguard that ensures the accused can challenge the
prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the Sessions Court must follow due process when examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC to maintain the
integrity of the judicial process.

14
 HEARING OF THE ACCUSED ON THE QUESTION OF THE SENTENCE

Hearing on the Question of Sentence: This means that, after the conviction, the judge must listen to arguments from the defence and possibly the prosecution regarding
the appropriate punishment for the accused. This process allows the accused to present mitigating factors or any information that might influence the judge's sentencing
decision, such as remorse, personal circumstances, or other aspects of the defendant's background. The "Hearing of the Accused on the Question of the Sentence"
typically refers to a stage in the criminal justice process where the defendant (the accused) is given an opportunity to address the court before a sentence is imposed. This
hearing generally happens after a conviction, but before the judge issues the final sentence.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
In Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 1220, the Supreme Court observed: The obligation to hear the accused on the question of the sentence, which is
imposed by section 235(2) of CrPC, is not discharged by putting a formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. The judge must
genuinely try to elicit from the accused all information that will eventually bear on the sentence question. Since the provision is intended to allow the accused to place
before the court all the relevant material having a bearing on the question of the sentence, there can be no doubt that the provision is beneficial and must be strictly
followed. It is mandatory and should not be treated as a mere formality.
Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab
In Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab, (2003) CriLJ 3764 (SC), the accused was convicted of murder and was punished with a death sentence. The order of sentence was
pronounced on the same day on which the order of conviction was passed. The same was challenged. It was held that where the court passes the order of conviction and
sentence on the same day, it cannot be said to be illegal. It is more so when there is no material on record to show that the accused made any request to the trial court for
adjournment of hearing for the hearing case for sentencing after the order of conviction was pronounced.

15
 Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 with Tarun Jit Tejpal vs State of Goa, Supreme Court on 19th August 2019

UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL (1979) 3 SCC 4

Facts:
• Prafulla Kumar Samal was convicted for a criminal offense.
• After his conviction, the issue arose about whether the accused had the right to be heard before sentencing.
• The question was whether a judge, after convicting a person, must give the accused an opportunity to present any mitigating circumstances before passing a sentence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the accused must be heard on the question of sentence before any sentence is imposed. The Court emphasized the importance of this
procedural right to ensure fairness.
The Court ruled that the sentencing process is not automatic and that the accused should be allowed to present any relevant factors that could influence the judge in
determining the sentence, such as their age, character, family background, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.
This decision laid down guidelines for courts on how to approach sentencing, particularly in cases where the crime is severe.

TARUN JIT TEJPAL VS. STATE OF GOA (2019)

Facts:
• Tarun Jit Tejpal, a former journalist, was accused of raping a female colleague in 2013. He was charged with sexual assault, among other offenses.
• The case went through various legal proceedings, and Tejpal was convicted in 2018 by the sessions court in Goa.
• Tejpal appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, challenging both the conviction and the sentence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Tarun Jit Tejpal for the crime of sexual assault.
The Court emphasized that the gravity of sexual assault required appropriate punishment and that the victim's dignity must be respected in such cases.
The Court discussed the need for a deterrent sentence in cases of sexual violence, taking into account the severity of the offense and its impact on the victim.
The Court did not show leniency toward Tejpal, reflecting the need to address serious offenses with strict measures to deter similar crimes in the future.

16
Willie (William) Slaney vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116 with Jasvinder Saini vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 & Kamil vs State of UP Supreme Court on
31st October 2018

WILLIE (WILLIAM) SLANEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AIR 1956 SC 116
Facts:
• Willie Slaney, a British national, was convicted by the Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh for murder. The case involved the killing of a person in a quarrel.
• Slaney was convicted, and during the trial, he argued that he was not guilty and was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself.
• He appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction and sentence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the right of the accused to defend themselves. The Court ruled that even in the case of a
confession, it must be voluntary and free from coercion.
The Court held that the conviction of the accused cannot be upheld unless it is shown that there was a fair trial and the accused had the opportunity to present their
defence.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act was also discussed, focusing on admissibility of confessions and whether the confession made by the accused was voluntary or coerced.
The Supreme Court in this case set a significant precedent for fair trial procedures, emphasizing the need for voluntary confessions and ensuring the rights of the accused
to defend themselves properly in court.
JASVINDER SAINI VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) (2013) 7 SCC 256
Facts:
• Jasvinder Saini was accused of abetting the suicide of his wife, which allegedly occurred due to his cruelty and constant harassment. The victim had committed
suicide, and her family accused Jasvinder Saini of being responsible for her death.
• The case centred around the applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment to suicide.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that for a person to be convicted under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide), there must be clear evidence that the accused's
actions directly led to the victim's decision to commit suicide.
The Court discussed the importance of proving intent or instigation on the part of the accused and ruled that mere cruelty or harassment is not sufficient to convict under
Section 306 unless the causality is established.
The Court also clarified that Section 306 IPC requires evidence that the accused's actions were the proximate cause of the suicide and that they must have instigated or
aided the victim to take their life.

17
The judgment in this case clarified the standard of proof required to convict someone of abetment to suicide and established the need for concrete evidence linking the
accused's conduct to the suicide.

KAMIL VS. STATE OF UP (SUPREME COURT ON 31ST OCTOBER 2018)

Facts:
• Kamil was involved in a case where he was accused of committing an offense under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
• The specifics of the case involved charges related to theft, and Kamil was convicted by the lower courts.
• Kamil challenged his conviction, particularly questioning the admissibility of certain evidence used against him during the trial.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court in this case examined the legality of evidence presented during the trial, focusing on the reliability of witness testimonies and the admissibility of
circumstantial evidence.
The Court observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that points unequivocally to the guilt of the accused.
The Court acquitted the accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented did not conclusively establish his involvement in the crime.
The Kamil case reinforced the principle that in cases where the conviction relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the evidence forms an unbroken
chain pointing to the accused's guilt.

18
 Accused X vs State of Maharashtra, Decided by Supreme Court on 12th April 2019

ACCUSED X VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT ON 12TH APRIL 2019
Facts:
• The accused (referred to as Accused X) was convicted for the brutal rape and murder of two minor girls.
• The crime was deemed to be in the “rarest of rare” category, leading to the imposition of the death sentence.
• The accused had been on death row for over 17 years and, during this time, developed severe mental health issues, including schizophrenia and psychosis.
• A review petition was filed after the mental illness of the accused worsened, arguing that the accused was unfit for execution due to his mental condition.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court took into account the accused’s mental illness as a mitigating factor.
The Court held that executing a person suffering from severe mental illness would amount to cruel and unusual punishment, violating constitutional rights.
The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, considering the accused's mental health and the extended period spent on death row.
The decision recognized post-conviction mental illness as a valid ground for modifying the sentence.

19